Why Man Utd selling Garnacho for £60m could bankroll £180m transfer kitty

SELLING Alejandro Garnacho would normally be unthinkable for Manchester United.

But cashing in on the Academy graduate could be a big step towards solving United’s problems on and off the field.

In many ways, flogging a young talent to a rival club like Chelsea for £60m would be a blunt confession of how bad things are at Old Trafford.

Yet if the proceeds were used to fund a £300million spree to strengthen what boss Ruben Amorim has called “the worst team” in the club’s history, it might be worth it.

If Amorim were able to bring in a left wing-back, a forward and a midfielder in exchange for sacrificing Garnacho, it could be business worth doing.

And with United’s owners also admitting that the club us in danger of breaking Premier League financial rules, the cash would also help avoid a points deduction.

Like wantaway forward Marcus Rashford, Garnacho is a goldmine when it comes to Proft and Sustainability Rules.

As a product of United’s youth development system, the Argentine winger’s current value on the club’s books is £0, nothing, nada.

If United were to bank £60m for Garnacho this month, it would immediately register as £60m of pure profit in this season’s accounts.

And it would, in theory at least, unlock huge spending power for Amorim as he tries to shape the squad to his system.

CASINO SPECIAL - BEST CASINO BONUSES FROM £10 DEPOSITS

That is because when clubs buy players, the transfer fees are amortised over the term of the contract for accounting purposes - effectively spreading the cost.

So if United spent £100m to sign striker Viktor Gyokeres on a five-year deal from Amorim’s old club Sportling Lisbon, for example, the cost per year of the deal would be £20m.

Therefore a £60m fee for Garnacho would pay for three years of amortisation on a Gyokeres deal.

Or for one year of amortisation on £300m of spending on players signing five-year deals at Old Trafford.

Ironically, it is Garnacho’s keenest suitors Chelsea who have recently led the way in selling homegrown players to finance spending sprees.

Academy poster boy Mason Mount was sold to United in 2023 for £60m, while fellow former trainees Ruben Loftus-Cheek, Ethan Ampadu and Callum Hudson-Odoi brought in an extra £20m of pure PSF profit.

Chelsea used it to bankroll £400m of spending in 23/24.

Last summer, the Blues cashed in on Academy graduates Ian Maatsen, Conot Gallagher and Lewis Hall, allowing them to splash out another £200m on new signings.

Chelsea have had to find other creative ways to stay within the £105m of losses permitted for each three-year period by PSR rules.

In 2022/23, the club raised more than £70m by selling hotels to a separate company also controlled by the owners. In 2023/24, the women’s team was sold for an undisclosed amount in a similar deal.

Yet Chelsea have avoided charges for PSR breaches for the 2022/23 and 2023/24 seasons.

United have, too, but only by the skin of their teeth.

And that is one reason why, if Garnacho is sold, Amorim is unlikely to have a “full” £300m to spend.

United’s PSR calculation for the three-year period ending 2023/24 is believed to have  included huge “add-backs” of around £40m related to 2021/22 losses attributed to the Covid pandemic.

United claimed that the structure of some of their commercial deals, particularly in China, and other factors meant that they suffered significantly higher losses than any other Premier League club  even though 2021/22 was the first season played without Covid restrictions.

The club also seems to have been successful in arguing that around £35m of costs related to INEOS buying into the club in February 2024 could also be ignored for PSR purposes.

But United will not have the Covid get-out-of-jail free card for the three-year assessment period that run until the end of this season, which is set to be the last under the current financial regulations.

And in a letter to a fan group, club chiefs made it clear that the club could not go on making losses at the current rate - more than £300m over the last three seasons.

TRANSFER NEWS LIVE: STAY UP TO DATE WITH ALL THE LATEST MOVES FROM THE JANUARY WINDOW

The letter said: “This is not sustainable and if we do not act now we are in danger of failing to comply with PSR/FFP [financial fair play] requirements in future years and significantly impacting our ability to compete on the pitch.”

INEOS have imposed big cost-cutting measures at the club, making a number of staff redundant and cutting perks, while also putting up ticket prices.

But the real impact of such measures will only become apparent over the medium and long term.

Selling Garnacho would give United an immediate £60m hit of cash.

How much would be used to bring in new players and how much stabilise the club’s financial position would be an argument for Amorim to have with INEOS.

It’s clear, however, that something needs to be done to tackle both situations and soon.

And if United can secure only a loan deal for Rashford in this window, then selling Garnacho looks like the best - perhaps only - option.